How Poor Are America s Poor? Examining the Plague of Poverty in America

Transcription

1 How Poor Are America s Poor? Examining the Plague of in America Robert Rector Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau counts the number of poor persons in the U.S. In 2005, the Bureau found 37 million poor Americans. Presidential candidate John Edwards claims that these 37 million Americans currently struggle with incredible poverty. 1 Edwards asserts that America s poor, who number one in eight of us do not have enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need, and are forced to live in terrible circumstances. 2 However, an examination of the living standards of the 37 million persons, whom the government defines as poor, reveals that what Edwards calls the plague 3 of American poverty might not be as terrible or incredible as candidate Edwards contends. But, if poverty means (as Edwards asserts) a lack of nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, then very few of the 37 million people identified as living in poverty by the Census Bureau would, in fact, be characterized as poor. Clearly, material hardship does exist in the United States, but it is quite restricted in scope and severity. The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as poor by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports: Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with oneand-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 10, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. This paper, in its entirety, can be found at: Produced by the Domestic Policy Studies Department Published by The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC (202) heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

2 Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family s essential needs. While this individual s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians. 123 Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of poor households have both cell and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no telephone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care. Much poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home. In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty. As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three-quarters of the nation s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty. Yet, although work and marriage are reliable ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to encourage work and marriage, the nation s remaining poverty could be reduced. While renewed welfare reform can help to reduce poverty, such efforts will be partially offset by the poverty-boosting impact of the nation s immigration system. Each year, the U.S. imports, through both legal and illegal immigration, hundreds of thousands of additional poor persons from abroad. As a result, one-quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first-generation immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by the Census Bureau is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. As long as the present steady flow of poverty-prone persons from foreign countries continues, efforts to reduce the total number of poor in the U.S. will be far more difficult. A sound anti-poverty strategy must seek to increase work and marriage, reduce illegal immigration, and increase the skill level of future legal immigrants. Robert Rector is Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. 1. John Edwards, Letter to President George W. Bush, July 19, 2007, at (August 21, 2007). 2. John Edwards, Conclusion: Ending in America, in John Edwards, Marion Crain, and Arne L. Kalleberg, eds., Ending in America: How to Restore the American Dream (New York: The New Press, 2007), pp. 256, Ibid., p. 256.

3 How Poor are America s Poor? Examining the Plague of in America Robert Rector is an important and emotional issue. Last year, the Census Bureau released its annual report on poverty in the United States declaring that there were 37 million poor persons living in this country in 2005, roughly the same number as in the preceding years. 4 According to the Census report, 12.6 percent of Americans were poor in 2005; this number has varied from 11.3 percent to 15.1 percent of the population over the past 20 years. 5 To understand poverty in America, it is important to look behind these numbers to look at the actual living conditions of the individuals the government deems to be poor. For most Americans, the word poverty suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. But only a small number of the 37 million persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau fit that description. While real material hardship certainly does occur, it is limited in scope and severity. Most of America s poor live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest-income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 10s, after adjusting for inflation. 6 The following are facts about persons defined as poor by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports: Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau Talking Points The number of Americans designated by the Census Bureau as impoverished is misleading and does not reflect the actual living conditions of the majority of those labeled as poor. The typical American designated as poor has a car, air conditioning, a microwave, two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, and a VCR or DVD player. Actual poverty, especially among children, can be reduced by addressing its two key causes: low levels of parental work and high levels of single-parent families. Given that 25 percent of our nation s poor are families of first-generation immigrants with low education levels and that 10 percent of the poor are in the country illegally, anti-poverty efforts should also target illegal immigration and boost the skill level of future legal immigrants. This paper, in its entirety, can be found at: Produced by the Domestic Policy Studies Department Published by The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC (202) heritage.org Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.

4 is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. 456 Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 10, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher. As a group, America s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II. While the poor are generally well nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have enough food to eat, while only 2 percent say they often do not have enough to eat. Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family s essential needs. While this individual s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians. Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, a third of poor households have both cellular and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, however, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly 30 percent do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care. The remaining poverty in the U.S. can be reduced further, particularly poverty among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don t work much, and fathers are absent from the home. In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours 4. U.S. Census Bureau, Income,, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005, Current Population Report, P60-231, August 2006, p Ibid., p Comparison of the average expenditure per person of the lowest quintile in 2001 with the middle quintile in 13. Sources: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey: Integrated Diary and Interview Survey Data, 12 73, Bulletin No. 1992, released in 19, and U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditures in 2001, Report No. 966, April Figures adjusted for inflation by the personal consumption expenditure index. page 2

5 of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty. Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty. While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to require work and encourage marriage, poverty among children would drop substantially. However, while renewed welfare reform can help to reduce poverty, under current conditions, such efforts will be partially offset by the poverty-boosting impact of the nation s immigration system. Each year, the U.S. imports, through both legal and illegal immigration, hundreds of thousands of additional poor persons from abroad. As a result, one-quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first-generation immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by the Census Bureau is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. As long as the present steady flow of povertyprone persons from foreign countries continues, efforts to reduce the total number of poor in the U.S. will be far more difficult. A sound anti-poverty strategy must seek to increase work and marriage, reduce illegal immigration, and increase the skill level of future legal immigrants. What Is? For most Americans, the word poverty suggests destitution: an inability to provide a family with nutritious food, clothing, and reasonable shelter. For example, the Pulse poll taken by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development in 2005 asked the general public the question: How would you describe being poor in the U.S.? The overwhelming majority of responses focused on homelessness, hunger or not being able to eat properly, and not being able to meet basic needs. 7 But if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 37 million people identified as being in poverty by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. 8 While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity. The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. Ownership of Property and Amenities among the Poor Chart 1 shows the ownership of property and consumer durables among poor households. The data are taken from the American Housing Survey for 2005, conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Census Bureau, the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) conducted by the Census Bureau, and the Residential Energy Consumption Survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy See Catholic Campaign for Human Development, Pulse Low Income Survey Wave IV, January 2005, at cchd/povertyusa/povpulse.htm. Interestingly, only about 1 percent of those surveyed regarded poverty in the terms the government does: as having an income below a specified level. 8. The Census Bureau defines an individual as poor if his or her family income falls below certain specified income thresholds. These thresholds vary by family size. In 2006, a family of four was deemed poor if its annual income fell below $20,615; a family of three was deemed poor if annual income was below $16,079. There are a number of problems with the Census Bureau s poverty figures: Census undercounts income, ignores assets accumulated in prior years, and disregards non-cash welfare such as food stamps and public housing in its official count of income. However, the most important problem with Census figures is that, even if a family s income falls below the official poverty thresholds, the family s actual living conditions are likely to be far higher than the image most Americans have in mind when they hear the word poverty. page 3

6 As the chart shows, some 43 percent of poor households own their own home. The typical home owned by the poor is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths. It has a garage or carport and a porch or patio and is located on a half-acre lot. The house was constructed in 1969 and is in good repair. The median value of homes owned by poor households was $95,276 in 2005 or 70 percent of the median value of all homes owned in the United States. 10 Chart 1 Some 73 percent of poor households own a car or truck; nearly a third own two or more cars or trucks. Eighty percent have air conditioning; by contrast, in 10, only 36 percent of the general U.S. population had air conditioning. Nearly nine in ten poor households own microwaves; more than a third have automatic dishwashers. Poor households are well equipped with modern entertainment technology. It should come as no surprise that nearly all ( percent) poor households have color TVs, but more than half actually own two or more color televisions. Onequarter own large-screen televisions, 78 percent have a VCR or DVD player, and almost two-thirds have cable or satellite TV reception. Some 58 percent own a stereo. More than a third of poor households have telephone answering machines. Roughly a third have both cell phones and conventional landline telephones. More than a third have personal computers. While these numbers do not suggest lives of luxury, they are notably different from conventional images of poverty. Ownership of Property and Consumer Goods Among Poor Households Own Home Car or Truck Two or More Cars or Trucks Air Conditioner Refrigerator Clothes Washer Clothes Dryer Dishwasher Garbage Disposal Microwave Color Television Two or More Color Televisions Cable or Satellite TV Large Screen TV VCR or DVD Player Two or More VCRs/DVD Players Stereo Telephone Answering Machine Any Telephone Landline Phone Landline and Cell Phone Cell Phone Only Personal Computer Internet Access Housing Conditions A similar disparity between popular conceptions and reality applies to the housing conditions of the poor. Most poor Americans live in houses or apartments that are relatively spacious and in good 9. U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States, 2005 Data Charts, at housing/ahs/nationaldata.html#jump2 (August 23, 2007); U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, 2003; and U.S Department of Energy, Housing Characteristics, 2001, Appliances Tables, at (August 21, 2007). 10. U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States, 2005 Data Charts. 42.6% 73.4% 30.8% 79.7% 99.2% 64.3% 56.7% 36.5% 32.0% 88.7%.3% 55.3% 62.6% 25.3% 78.0% 25.3% 58.6% 35.3% 91.3% 88.8% 32.5% 3.6% 36.0% 18.0% B % 40% 60% 80% % Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States, 2003 and 2005 Data Charts, at (August 23, 2007); U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Housing Characteristics, 2001, at (August 21, 2007); and U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, page 4

7 Chart 2 B 2064 Table 1 B 2064 Housing of Poor Households Household Crowding Single Family Homes 49% Apartments 41% Persons per Room All Households Poor Households Up to % 66.2% or More Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States, 2005 Data Charts, at www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html#jump2 (August 23, 2007). Mobile Homes - 10% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States, 2005 Data Charts, at housing/ahs/nationaldata.html#jump2 (August 23, 2007). repair. As Chart 2 shows, 49 percent of poor households live in single-family homes, either unattached single dwellings or attached units such as townhouses. Another 41 percent live in apartments, and 10 percent live in mobile homes. 11 Housing Space Both the overall U.S. population and the poor in America live, in general, in very spacious housing. As Table 1 shows, 71 percent of all U.S. households have two or more rooms per tenant. Among the poor, this figure is 66 percent. Crowding is quite rare; only 2.4 percent of all households and 5.6 percent of poor households are crowded with more than one person per room. 12 By contrast, social reformer Jacob Riis, writing on tenement living conditions around 1890 in New York City, described crowded families living with four or five persons per room and some 20 square feet of living space per person. 13 Housing space can also be measured by the number of square feet per person. The Residential Energy Consumption survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy shows that Americans have an average of 721 square feet of living space per person. Poor Americans have 439 square feet. 14 Reasonably comparable international square-footage data are provided by the Housing Indicator Program of the United Nations Center for Human Settlements, which surveyed housing conditions in major cities in 54 different nations. This survey showed the United States to have, by far, the most spacious housing units, with 50 percent to percent more square footage per capita than city dwellers in other industrialized nations. 15 (See Table 2.) America s poor compare favorably with the general population of other nations in square footage of living space. The average poor American has more square footage of living space than does the average person living in London, Paris, Vienna, and Munich. Poor Americans have nearly three times the living space of average urban citizens in middleincome countries such as Mexico and Turkey. Poor American households have seven times more housing space per person than the general urban popu- 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Jacob Riis, How the Other Half Lives (New York: Dover Press, 11), pp. 6, 41, U.S. Department of Energy, Housing Characteristics 1993, 1995, pp. 46, 47. The figures in the text refer to total living space, including both heated and non-heated living space. 15. U.N. Center for Human Settlements and World Bank, Preliminary Findings, Vol. II of The Housing Indicators Program (New York: United Nations, 1993), Table 5. page 5

8 lation of very-low-income countries such as India and China. (See the appendix table for more detailed information.) Some critics have argued that the comparisons in Table 2 are misleading. 16 These critics claim that U.S. housing in general cannot be compared to housing in specific European cities such as Paris or London because housing in these cities is unusually small and does not represent the European housing stock overall. To assess the validity of this argument, Table 3 presents national housing data for 15 West European countries. These data represent the entire national housing stock in each of the 15 countries. In general, the national data on housing size are similar to the data on specific European cities presented in Table 2 and the appendix table. As Table 3 shows, U.S. housing (with an average size of 1,875 square feet per unit) is nearly twice as large as European housing (with an average size of 6 square feet per unit.) After adjusting for the number of persons in each dwelling unit, Americans have an average of 721 square feet per person, compared to 396 square feet for the average European. The housing of poor Americans (with an average of 1,228 square feet per unit) is smaller than that of the average American but larger than that of the average European (who has 6 square feet per unit). Overall, poor Americans have an average of 439 square feet of living space per person, which is as much as or more than the average citizen in most West European countries. (This comparison is to the average European, not poor Europeans.) Table 2 B 2064 Income Grouping Housing Space per Capita Typical Nations Average Housing Space U.S sq. ft. U.S. Poor U.S. Poor Apartment Dwellings 320 High-Income Countries ($14,360 $23,810) High Middle-Income Countries ($2,470 $10,450) Middle-Income Countries ($1,260 $52,450) Low-Income Countries ($500 $1,200) Very Low-Income Countries ($130 $390) United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan Hungary, Greece, Korea, Spain Turkey, Chile, Poland, Mexico Egypt, Philippines, Morocco, Colombia 94.7 India, China, Nigeria, Pakistan 65.5 Source: U.N. Center for Human Settlements and World Bank, Preliminary Findings, Vol. II of The Housing Indicators Program (New York: United Nations, 1993), p. 26, and U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Housing Characteristics 1993, June 1995, pp , Table 3.4, at tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/consumption/ pdf (August 21, 2007). Housing Quality Of course, it might be possible that the housing of poor American households could be spacious but still dilapidated or unsafe. However, data from the American Housing Survey indicate that such is not the case. For example, the survey provides a tally of households with severe physical problems. Only a tiny portion of poor households and an even smaller portion of total households fall into that category. The most common severe problem, according to the American Housing Survey, is a shared bathroom, which occurs when occupants lack a bathroom and must share bathroom facilities with individuals in a neighboring unit. This condition affects about 1 percent of all U.S. households and 1.6 percent of all poor households. About one percent of all households and 2.3 percent of poor 16. See Katha Pollitt, : Fudging the Numbers, The Nation, November 2, Pollitt argues that it is misleading to compare the living space of poor Americans nationwide to that of average citizens in major cities in other nations, since European cities, in particular, have small housing units that are not representative of their entire nations. However, the author of the United Nations Housing Indicators report asserts that, in most cases, the average housing size in major cities can be taken as roughly representative of the nation as a whole. A comparison of the data in Table 3 and the appendix table would appear to confirm this. page 6

9 households have other severe physical problems. The most common are repeated heating breakdowns and multiple upkeep problems. The American Housing Survey also provides a count of households affected by moderate physical problems. A wider range of households falls into this category 9 percent of the poor and 4 percent of total households. However, the problems affecting these units are clearly modest. While living in such units might be disagreeable by modern middleclass standards, they are a far cry from Dickensian squalor. The most common problems are upkeep, lack of a full kitchen, and use of unvented oil, kerosene or gas heaters as the primary heat source. (The last condition occurs almost exclusively in the South.) and Malnutrition Malnutrition (also called undernutrition) is a condition of reduced health due to a chronic shortage of calories and nutriments. There is little or no evidence of poverty-induced malnutrition in the United States. It is often believed that a lack of financial resources forces poor people to eat low-quality diets that are deficient in nutriments and high in fat. However, survey data show that nutriment density (amount of vitamins, minerals, and protein per kilocalorie of food) does not vary by income class. 17 Nor do the poor consume higher-fat diets than do the middle class; the percentage of persons with high fat intake (as a share of total calories) is virtually the same for lowincome and upper-middle-income persons. 18 Overconsumption of calories in general, however, is a major problem among the poor, as it is within the general U.S. population. Table 3 B 2064 Living Space: American and European Housing Country Source: University of Liège, International Centre for Research and Information on the Public and Cooperative Economy, Housing Statistics in the European Union, 2002, and U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Housing Characteristics 1993, June 1995, pp , Table 3.4, at tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/consumption/ pdf (August 21, 2007). Examination of the average nutriment consumption of Americans reveals that age and gender play a far greater role than income class in determining nutritional intake. For example, the nutriment intakes of adult women in the upper middle class (with incomes above 350 percent of the poverty level) more closely resemble the intakes of poor women than they do those of upper-middle-class men, children, or teens. 19 The average nutriment consumption of upper-middle-income preschoolers, as a group, is virtually identical with that of poor preschoolers but not with the consumption of adults or older children in the upper middle class. 17. C. T. Windham et al., Nutrient Density of Diets in the USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey, 17 18: Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Dietary Density, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, January Interagency Board for Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research, Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring in the United States (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995), p. VA 167. Survey Year Average Persons per Dwelling Average Floor Space per Dwelling Average Floor Space per Person Austria sq. ft sq. ft. Belgium Denmark , France Finland Germany Greece Ireland Italy Luxembourg , Netherlands , Portugal Spain Sweden United Kingdom European Average U.S. Poor Households , U.S. All Households , page 7

10 Table 4 B 2064 Average Nutrient Intakes As a Percentage of Recommended Daily Allowance All Children Age 5 and Under Under % of Over 350% of Males Ages 6 11 Under % of Over 350% of Females Ages 6 11 Under % of Over 350% of Protein 267% 274% 246% 220% 225% 231% Vitamin A (IU) Vitamin E Vitamin C Thiamin Riboflavin Niacin Vitamin B Folate Vitamin B Calcium Phosphorus Magnesium Iron Zinc Average Nutrient Intake 184% 200% 161% 157% 152% 169% Mean Adequacy Ratio Males Ages Under % of Over 350% of 168% 184% % 158% 94 Females Ages Under % of Over 350% of 150% 145% % 114% Source: K. S. Tippett, S. J. Mickle, J. D. Goldman, K. E. Sykes, D. A. Cook, R. S. Sebastian, J. W. Wilson, and J. Smith, Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States, 1 Day, , PB , U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, September 1995, Table 10-1 and Table This same pattern holds for adult males, teens, and most other age and gender groups. In general, children aged 0 11 years have the highest average level of nutriment intakes relative to the recommended daily allowance (RDA), followed by adult and teen males. Adult and teen females have the lowest level of intakes. This pattern holds for all income classes. Nutrition and Poor Children Government surveys provide little evidence of widespread undernutrition among poor children; in fact, they show that the average nutriment consumption among the poor closely resembles that of the upper middle class. For example, children in families with incomes below the poverty level actually consume more meat than do children in families with incomes at 350 percent of the poverty level or higher (roughly $72,000 for a family of four in today s dollars). Table 4 shows the average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals as a percentage of the recommended daily allowance among poor and middleclass children at various age levels. 20 The intake of nutriments is very similar for poor and middle-class children and is generally well above the recommended daily level. For example, the consumption 19. K. S. Tippett, S. J. Mickle, J. D. Goldman, K. E. Sykes, D. A. Cook, R. S. Sebastian, J. W. Wilson, and J. Smith, Food and Nutrient Intakes by Individuals in the United States, 1 Day, , PB , U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, September page 8

11 of protein (a relatively expensive nutriment) among poor children is, on average, between 150 percent and 267 percent of the RDA. When shortfalls of specific vitamins and minerals appear (for example, among teenage girls), they tend to be very similar for the poor and the middle class. While poor teenage girls, on average, tend to under-consume vitamin E, vitamin B-6, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, iron, and zinc, a virtually identical under-consumption of these same nutriments appears among upper-middle-class girls. Poor Children s Weight and Stature On average, poor children are very well nourished, and there is no evidence of widespread significant undernutrition. For example, two indicators of undernutrition among the young are thinness (low weight for height) and stuntedness (low height for age). These problems are rare to nonexistent among poor American children. The generally good health of poor American children can be illustrated by international comparisons. Table 5 provides data on children s size based on the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Data Base on Child Growth: Children are judged to be short or stunted if their height falls below the 2.3 percentile level of standard height-to-age tables. 21 Table 5 shows the percentage of children under age five in developing nations who are judged to be stunted by this standard. In developing nations as a whole, some 43 percent of children are stunted. In Africa, more than a third of young children are affected; in Asia, nearly half. 22 By contrast, in the United States, some 2.6 percent of Table 5 B 2064 Stunted Growth in Children* Precent of Children Who Are Stunted Region (Developing Countries Only) (Age 5 and Under) Africa 38.6% Asia 47.1 Latin America 22.2 Oceania 41.9 All Developing Countries 42.7 United States (poor children only) 2.6 * Stunted is defi ned as having a height that is two standard deviations below the WHO/NCHS reference norms for that age. Sources: M. de Onis, C. Monteiro, J. Akre, and G. Clugston, The Worldwide Magnitude of Protein-Energy Malnutrition: An Overview from the WHO Global Database on Child Growth, World Health Organization Bulletin, Vol. 71, No. 6 (1993), pp (1993), at whqlibdoc.who.int/bulletin/1993/vol71-no6/bulletin_1993_71(6)_ pdf (August 21, 2007), and U.S. data calculated by the author from Third National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey. young children in poor households are stunted by a comparable standard a rate only slightly above the expected standard for healthy, well-nourished children. 23 While concern for the well-being of poor American children is always prudent, the data overall underscore how large and well-nourished poor American children are by global standards. Throughout this century, improvements in nutrition and health have led to increases in the rate of growth and ultimate height and weight of American children. Poor children have clearly benefited from this trend. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than boys of similar age in the general U.S. population in the late 1950s. Poor boys 20. Ibid., Tables 10-1, Table 4 in the present paper also provides the mean adequacy ratio for various groups. The mean adequacy ratio represents average intake of all the nutriments listed as a percent of RDA. However, in computing mean adequacy, intake values exceeding percent of RDA are counted at, since the body cannot use an excess consumption of one nutriment to fill a shortfall of another nutriment. 21. The World Health Organization uses standard height-for-age tables developed by the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the U.S. Department and Health and Human Services. 22. M. de Onis and J. P. Habicht, Anthropometric Reference Data for International Use: Recommendations from a World Health Organization Expert Committee, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1996, pp Heritage Foundation calculation using National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey III data and WHO standard tables for shortness for age. Shortness for age is the result of genetic variation as well as nutritional factors. The World Health Organization standards assume that even in a very well-nourished population, 2.3 percent of children will have heights below the stunted cut-off levels due to normal genetic factors. Problems are apparent if the number of short children in a population rises appreciably above that 2.3 percent. page 9

12 living today are one inch taller and some 10 pounds heavier than GIs of similar age during World War II, and nearly two inches taller and 20 pounds heavier than American doughboys back in World War I. 24 Chart 3 Percent of Women Overweight B 2064 and Obesity The principal nutrition-related health problem among the poor, as with the general U.S. population, stems from the overconsumption, not underconsumption, of food. While overweight and obesity are prevalent problems throughout the U.S. population, they are found most frequently among poor adults. Poor adult men are slightly less likely than non-poor men to be overweight (30.4 percent compared to 31.9 percent); but, as Chart 3 shows, poor adult women are significantly more likely to be overweight than are non-poor women (47.3 percent compared to 32 percent). 25 and Consistency of Food Supply It is clear that poor Americans are not undernourished and, over time, experience an abundance rather than a chronic shortfall of food. However, even though the poor, in general, have an ample food supply, some do suffer from temporary food shortages. For example, even if a poor household, on average, has an ample food supply, it might have to cut back meals or go without if food stamps run out at the end of the month. This problem of temporary food shortages leads some advocates to claim there is widespread hunger in the United States. 26 In reality, government data show that most poor households do not suffer even from temporary food shortages. Overall, as Chart 4 shows, 98 percent of U.S. households report that they always had enough food to eat during the past four months, although not always the kinds of food they would have preferred. Some 1.8 percent of all households report they sometimes did not have enough food 60% 40% 20% 47.3% 46.9% 32.2% All Women 30.1% White Women Poor Adult Women 50.0% 49.0% 50.5% 44.4% Black Women Hispanic Women Non-Poor Adult Women Source: Interagency Board for Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research, Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1995), p. VA 219. to eat during the previous four months, while 0.4 percent say they often did not have enough food. 27 Among the poor, the figures are only slightly lower: 92.5 percent of poor households assert that they always had enough food to eat during the previous four months, although 26 percent of these did not always have the foods they would have preferred. Some 6 percent of poor households state that they sometimes did not have enough food and 1.5 percent say they often did not have enough food. 28 The bottom line: Although a small portion of poor households report temporary food shortages, the overwhelming majority of poor households report that they consistently have enough food to eat. 24. Bernard D. Karpinos, Current Height and Weight of Youths of Military Age, Human Biology, 1961, pp Recent data on young males in poverty provided by the National Center for Health Statistics of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, based on the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. 25. Interagency Board for Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research, Third Report on Nutrition Monitoring, p. VA Food Research Action Council, Hunger in America, and Its Solutions: Basic Facts, July 2004, at HungerFacts.pdf (August 21, 2007). 27. Calculated from U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, Ibid. page 10

13 Chart 4 B 2064 Chart 5 B 2064 % 86.1% Enough Food to Eat Over the Last Four Months Poor Households: Dependability of Food Supply In the last four months: 1. The food we bought just didn t last and we didn t have money for more. 75% 66.6% All Households Poor Households Never Sometimes Often 6.7% 20.0% 73.3% 2. We couldn t afford to eat balanced meals. 50% Never Sometimes Often 5.6% 19.4% 75.0% 25% 25.9% 3. Our child/children were not eating enough because we couldn t afford enough food. Enough Food of the Kinds We Want 11.7% Enough Food, But Not Always the Kinds of Food We Want 5.9% 1.8% 0.4% 1.5% Sometimes Not Enough Food Often Not Enough Food Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, Chart 5 provides six additional questions that explore this issue in greater detail. Across this array of questions, 73 percent to 95 percent of poor households report they are free of the particular food problem mentioned. Significant food shortages affect only a minority of poor households. For example, 13 percent of poor households with children report that their children sometimes or often did not have enough food to eat during the past four months. Disturbingly, one poor adult in twenty reports going at least one entire day in the previous four months without eating at all due to a lack of money for food. 29 While this represents a stressful condition for the individual involved, it is atypical of the poor in general. Never Sometimes Often 4. Did any adult in the household ever cut the size of their meals because there wasn t enough money for food? No Yes No Yes No Yes 10.7% 2.2% 12.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, % 87.8% 5. Did any adult in the household ever eat less than he/she thought he/she should because there wasn t enough money to buy food? 13.4% 86.6% 6. Did any adult in the household ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn t enough money to buy food? 4.5% 95.5% While significant temporary food shortages do occur for some households in the U.S., they are rare. For example, across the whole U.S. population, in a given month, one child in three hundred will skip a 29. Ibid. page 11

14 meal because of the family s lack of money for food. One child in a thousand will go a whole day without eating for the same reason. 30 Living Conditions and Hardships among the Poor Overall, the living standards of most poor Americans are far higher than is generally appreciated. The overwhelming majority of poor families are well housed, have adequate food, and enjoy a wide range of modern amenities, including air conditioning and cable television. Some 70 percent of poor households report that during the course of the past year they were able to meet all essential expenses, including mortgage, rent, utility bills, and important medical care. 31 (See Chart 6.) However, two caveats should be applied to this generally optimistic picture. First, many poor families have difficulty paying their regular bills and must scramble to make ends meet. For example, more than a third of poor families are late in paying the rent or utility bills at some point during the year. Second, the living conditions of the average poor household should not be taken to represent all poor households. There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor: a third of poor households have both cell phones and landline phones; a third also have telephone answering machines. But, at the other extreme, a tenth of the poor have no telephone at all. Similarly, most of America s poor live in accommodations with two or more rooms per person, but around 7 percent of the poor are crowded, with less than one room per person. These points are illustrated in Table 6, which lists the financial and material hardships among poor households in During at least one month in the preceding year, 21 percent of poor households reported they were unable to pay their fuel, gas, or Chart 6 B 2064 Poor Households That Were Able to Meet All Essential Household Expenses* During the Past Year No 30% Yes 70% * Includes mortgage or rent, utility bills, and important medical care. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, electric bills promptly; around 4 percent had their utilities cut off at some point due to nonpayment. Another 14 percent of poor households failed, at some point in the year, to make their full monthly rent or mortgage payments, and 1 percent were evicted due to failure to pay rent. One in 10 poor families had their phones disconnected due to nonpayment at some time during the preceding year. Overall, more than one-third of poor families experienced at least one financial difficulty during the year. Most had a late payment of rent or utility bills. Some 16 percent had phones or utilities cut off or were evicted. Poor households also experienced the material problems listed on Table Some 13 percent had a family member who needed to go to a doctor or hospital at some point in the prior year but did not 30. Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, Steven Carlson, Household Food Security in the United States, 2005, Economic Research Report, Number 26, United States Department of Agriculture, November 2006, p Calculated from U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, Ibid. 33. Ibid. The Wave 8 Topical Module also contains a question about whether members of the household needed to see a dentist but did not go. Because the question does not specify whether or not the failure to visit the dentist was due to an inability to pay, it was not included in this report. page 12

15 go; 7 percent reported that they did not have enough food at some point in the previous four months; and around 7 percent were overcrowded, with more than one person per room. Around 3 percent of poor households experienced upkeep problems with the physical conditions of their apartments or homes, having three or more of the physical problems listed in Table 7. Overall Hardship Altogether, around 62 percent of poor households experienced none of the financial or physical hardships listed in Table 6 These families were able to pay all their bills on time. They were able to obtain medical care if needed, had enough food, were not crowded, and had few upkeep problems in the home. Another 17 percent of poor households experienced one financial or material problem during the year. Around 21 percent of poor households had two or more financial or material problems. The most common problem facing poor households was late payment of rent or utilities. While having difficulty paying monthly bills is stressful, in most cases late payment did not result in material hardship or deprivation. Relatively few of those who were late in payments subsequently had their utilities cut off or were evicted. If late payment problems are excluded from the count, we find that 71 percent of poor households had none of the remaining problems listed in Table 6. Some 18 percent had one problem, and 11 percent had two or more problems. While it is appropriate to be concerned about the difficulties faced by some poor families, it is important to keep these problems in perspective. Many poor families have Table 6 B 2064 Problem* Financial and Material Problems All Households Poor Households Financial Problems Failed to pay full gas, oil, or electric bill on time 8.7% 21.5% Failed to pay full rent or mortgage on time Phone disconnected due to non-payment Gas, oil, or electricity cut off due to non-payment Evicted for not paying rent or mortgage Material Hardships Needed to go to a doctor or hospital but unable to go Not enough food, sometimes or often** Crowded (more than one person per room) Three or more physical upkeep problems in home Total Financial and Material Problems Zero problems One problem Two or more problems Total Problems, Excluding Late Payment of Utilities, Rent, or Mortgage Zero problems One problem Two problems Three or more problems * Experienced at any time during previous 12 months. ** During previous four months. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, Table 7 B 2064 Physical Upkeep Problems in Houses or Apartments Problem All Households Poor Households Leaking roof or ceiling 5.5% 8.6% Broken window glass or windows that cannot shut Electrical wires running on outside of wall in fi nished areas of home Toilet, hot water heater, or other plumbing that does not work Holes in walls or ceiling, or cracks wider than edge of a dime Holes in fl oor big enough for someone to catch a foot on Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, page 13